The difference would be that his brother and sister are official working members of the BRF, and in line the line of succession.

I understand the difference perfectly which I admitted in previous posts. But I just don't agree with not including their engagements when the same one performed by Princess Alexandra or the Duke of Kent would be included. IMO practically, there is no difference.

Quote:

Originally Posted by NGalitzine

Michael only rarely carries out official engagements on behalf of the monarch (usually just in attendance at major state occassions like the Trooping or a guest at a state dinner) and is not in the line of succession.

I ment Prince Michael's engagements listed on his personal website, not the CC notes where Prince Michael is mentioned as one of those who accompanied the Queen or, very rarely, as one who represented her.

Because I had already told you that I am only counting the official engagements of the Royal Family and the only place they are recorded is the CC.

Most royals do engagements that aren't in the CC, not just Prince and Princess Michael, but because those engagements aren't listed in the CC they aren't official engagements, but private ones, and so they aren't counted e.g. Princess Beatrice receiving the Olympic Torch at Harewood House.

It takes me about two hours a week to do what I am doing using the CC. to have to check every single individual royal webpage to find the unofficial engagements would add hours.

A busy week for some and a relaxing week for others. The Queen and Philip were very busy on two days - racking up 15/16 engagements each over those two days.

The Duke of Gloucester is given credit this week because he was one of the officials who received The Queen and Phillip and then escorted them around on their visit to The University of Worcester because he is the Chancellor of that University.

The Wessexes had a very quiet week, but as the school holidays are getting close to starting, if not already started it is possible that they took the week off to be parents rather than working.

Order from most downwards - the 'league table' if you like. I refuse to calculate how people are moving up or down that list. I do move people around who have moved up or down but I am not putting in how many places they are moving - although usually it is only one place in either direction.

Year to date total - 3027 with 77% of those engagements being carried out by The Queen, her children and their spouses. The remaining 23% have been done by her grandchildren, first cousins and their spouses. This sees a change from last week with the Queen, her children and their spouses reducing their percentage of engagements again in comparison to the grandchildren, cousins and their spouses. This is the same as last week.

The main line (The Queen, Duke of Edinburgh, Prince of Wales, Duchess of Cornwall, Duke of Cambridge, Duchess of Cambridge, Prince Harry) has risen to 45% mainly due to the work being done by The Queen and Philip.

Thank you for the updated figures, Iluvbertie. Is compiling the numbers turning out to be more of a hassle than you expected?

The Queen's figures are remarkable. I know it's Diamond Jubilee year, but with the Olympics and Paralympics still to come, it's amazing how busy she's been. Of course, the figures can't include the amount of time she spends on the Red Boxes and state papers. Tim O'Donovan always finishes his letter to The Times on New Year's Day with the reminder that, apart from Christmas Day and Easter Day, the Queen works through her boxes every single day of the year.

It isn't really a hassle as it has become a bit of a ritual - about 10.00 p.m. Sydney time I go to the Monarchy website and go through each royals' engagments and update my excel listing. Some days take longer than others of course and Monday are always longer as that is when I do three days worth as the website isn't updated on the weekends or on public holidays.

I will be interested to see what Mr O'Donovan comes up with as a comparison - I wonder sometimes if I count two things that he would only count as one e.g. if the CC says they visit some where and then they have a luncheon there I count that as two but he might see that as one.

I am trying to be consistent of course - so if I count a visit and Luncheon as two for The Queen it is also two for Charles or whomever.

It amazes me the number of times a royal will have four or five visits in a day when you also realise the preparations that go into each of those visits - background on the place, event people etc.

Do the family often slim down the amount of engagements they do in the Summer months? I would imagine the Wessexes do, due to their young children being off for summer and they always go on a summer holiday.

Also, are you counting Lady Louise's appearance in the court circular (5th and 16th June)? I would imagine not as she is not HRH and will not be carrying out duties. I was just curious as Louise had never been mentioned until now. I don't think she was even mentioned when she attend Trooping the Colour last year.

__________________

"I am yours, you are mine, of that be sure. You are locked in my heart, the little key is lost and now you must stay there forever."

Written by Princess Alix of Hesse and by Rhine in the diary of her fiance, Tsarevich Nicholas.

Lady Louise is still a child; until she comes of age, her appearances will not be counted. Strictly speaking, a person can theoretically carry out engagements on behalf of the Crown even before he/she is 18 or 21; however, to the best of my knowledge, that's pretty rare - and Louise has certainly not done that just yet.

It's certainly the case that the Queen and DoE undertake very few official engagements while they're at Balmoral. This year will be different because of the Olympics, but we really don't see all that much of HM and the DoE in August and September apart from when they go to church on Sundays.

Most royals tend to keep going through the summer but they all have some downtime when they go to Balmoral for their annual break.

For The Queen and Philip that is normally most of August and September. This year it will be somewhat later due to the Olympics and Paralympics as The Queen is to open both Games. They may extend their Balmoral break if possible into October particularly as they usually either attend or host or both a State Visit around that time but there are no State Visits scheduled this year because of the Jubilee. She also doesn't have to be back in London for the State Opening now as that has been moved to earlier in the year.

Louise isn't counted as she is a minor. At the moment I also don't have a column for Tim Laurence - who has probably done about 50+ engagements accompanying Anne. I will very likely add a column for him next year just to identify how often he is somewhere officially.

Order from most downwards - the 'league table' if you like. I refuse to calculate how people are moving up or down that list. I do move people around who have moved up or down but I am not putting in how many places they are moving - although usually it is only one place in either direction.

Year to date total - 3161 with 78% of those engagements being carried out by The Queen, her children and their spouses. The remaining 22% have been done by her grandchildren, first cousins and their spouses. This sees a change from last week with the Queen, her children and their spouses increasing their percentage of engagements again in comparison to the grandchildren, cousins and their spouses.

The main line (The Queen, Duke of Edinburgh, Prince of Wales, Duchess of Cornwall, Duke of Cambridge, Duchess of Cambridge, Prince Harry) has risen to 46% mainly due to the work being done by The Queen and Philip.

A fairly typical week - although a lot of events were Olympics related. There were a lot of people also representing The Queen receiving the visiting Heads of State at airports but these aren't included as there was no royal there in person.

Order from most downwards - the 'league table' if you like. I refuse to calculate how people are moving up or down that list. I do move people around who have moved up or down but I am not putting in how many places they are moving - although usually it is only one place in either direction.

Year to date total - 3307 with 77.5% of those engagements being carried out by The Queen, her children and their spouses. The remaining 22.5% have been done by her grandchildren, first cousins and their spouses. This sees a change from last week with the Queen, her children and their spouses increasing their percentage of engagements again in comparison to the grandchildren, cousins and their spouses.

The main line (The Queen, Duke of Edinburgh, Prince of Wales, Duchess of Cornwall, Duke of Cambridge, Duchess of Cambridge, Prince Harry) has risen to 46.5% mainly due to the work being done by The Queen and Philip.

21.5% of all engagements are being done by those over 85 - The Queen and Philip.
28.5% done by those 70 and above (The Queen, Philip, The Duke of Kent, Prince Michael of Kent and Princess Alexandra)
68.5% are being done by those over 60 - meaning that 40% of all engagements so far this year have been carried out by Charles, Camilla, Anne, The Duke and Duchess of Gloucester and Princess Micheal (the ones in their 60s).

In the light of Richard Kays' article about reducing the size of the royal family I thought I would throw out those figures for people's interest.

I would also like to reiterate that this is my count only and nothing official or meant to be and that it is possible, if not probable, that someone else doing a count would have different figures - although I think they wouldn't be vastly different but that they might count something like 'visited xxxx and then viewed yyyy' as one engagement while I count it as two - consistently for all royal I hope.

21.5% of all engagements are being done by those over 85 - The Queen and Philip.

28.5% done by those 70 and above (The Queen, Philip, The Duke of Kent, Prince Michael of Kent and Princess Alexandra)

68.5% are being done by those over 60 - meaning that 40% of all engagements so far this year have been carried out by Charles, Camilla, Anne, The Duke and Duchess of Gloucester and Princess Micheal (the ones in their 60s).

In the light of Richard Kays' article about reducing the size of the royal family I thought I would throw out those figures for people's interest.

It does seem that Charles' sons are needed to start handling full-time engagement schedules of a fullness and kind that will be needed to replace the older generation of royals. Their jobs keep coming up as reasons for them being kept from 'plunging in' but surely - since none of these roles have job descriptions - and the generational shift is occurring - it would make sense for them to pitch in with the family work right about now. They are men - entering their 30's. The continued aloofness is a puzzle. How long will they be cut slack before they start to show their commitment to their royal life, I wonder?

It seems to me that the two York princesses are needed - if only for a few years. Seems to make sense on one level. Edward's children are not an issue since they are so much younger. Surely the needs of the moment far outweigh all these protocols - or is it really about money and how many royals are 'on the payroll'?

Isn"t William being required to make a decision about his military career soon. His current tour is supposed to end in 2013. In a fairly recent interview he said something to the effect that the pressure to balance his military and royal work was increasing. Having Prince Philip get sick is sure to have an impact on his decision.

Whenever William and Kate do start being royals only and not a part-time royal and a part-time RAF helicopter isn't known but they do need to step up to the plate sooner rather than later and take on 100s of duties a year to take over from the aging older royals - those in their 70s and above and even those in their 60s other than Charles and Camilla who can't retire or cut back but will have to increase their load over then next 20 years.

Harry will also have to realise sooner rather than later that he can't have a full-time military career of 20+ years like his Uncle Andrew did simply because his father and brother don't want the York girls to do some of the work of the aging royal cousins and siblings of the present and future king (3 - 4 royals to replace the current crop of 12 outside of the main line means they simply have to start doing the work of being royal rather than playing at being soldiers).

Whenever William and Kate do start being royals only and not a part-time royal and a part-time RAF helicopter isn't known but they do need to step up to the plate sooner rather than later

Is William working part-time in the RAF? I keep hearing that he is 'very busy' doing full-time work (though I know the schedule - as described - should give pretty significant swathes of time off). Certainly kate has lots of free time - as when William is working.

I am aware of an argument that runs that William is not the direct heir (yet) so of course he will not work - yet that seems like more an excuse than a legitimate reason. William and Harry are grown men and - like Charles at their age (even younger) - it would make sense that they would be taking hold of their destined life. Instead we hear the rumor floated in a newspaper that Harry wants to work and live in the US. What is all that about? The two men seem totally disengaged from royal duties - does this bode well?

Just wondering - is it possible that William and Harry could - or would - refuse to serve in their royal roles? Are their positions dependent on doing royal work? I'm wondering if refusing to do royal work is an equivalent to stepping aside in the line of succession. Or could someone like William totally ignore all royal duties - go his own way for decades - and then when his father dies, still ascend the throne?

Quote:

Harry will also have to realise sooner rather than later that he can't have a full-time military career of 20+ years like his Uncle Andrew did simply because his father and brother don't want the York girls to do some of the work of the aging royal cousins and siblings of the present and future king (3 - 4 royals to replace the current crop of 12 outside of the main line means they simply have to start doing the work of being royal rather than playing at being soldiers).

So the DailyMail article is spurious. Andrew does not want his daughters to work in the royal business. (I would assume so since Andrew is part of the family committee that is making these decisions). How has this gotten all scrambled the other way? Andrew does not have the best luck with his PR if he is seen as 'lazy' and yet has been one of the hardest working royals along with Anne.

William might offiicially be described as full-time but given how often he isn't there he isn't working as a full-time pilot. He has hardly been there for the last two months and has more time off coming with the Olympics and then his trip to Asia - so for the best part of 4 months straight he will hardly have had a chance to have to do any work with the Jubilee and other activities and no doubt when he returns from Asia he and Kate will have to take a holiday.

If either William or Harry won't to turn their backs on their destiny they will have to ask Parliament to pass legislation to strip them of their positions. They can't simply resign - it will take an Act of Parliament involving the full three readings of the legislation with questions and debates about the issue through both houses of Parliament in the UK and even through the various other parliaments of which The Queen is now The Queen. That situation has changed since 1936 with the various realms having a greater say in these matters through needing to have to pass their own legislation.

William might offiicially be described as full-time but given how often he isn't there he isn't working as a full-time pilot. He has hardly been there for the last two months and has more time off coming with the Olympics and then his trip to Asia - so for the best part of 4 months straight he will hardly have had a chance to have to do any work with the Jubilee and other activities and no doubt when he returns from Asia he and Kate will have to take a holiday.

If he's hardly been there - where has he been? What has he been doing? Kate has been doing some engagements but William's count is barely inching up. What is he up to? The reason given for his low level involvement with royal duties is that he has 'a busy schedule' - where is that busyness happening?

William might offiicially be described as full-time but given how often he isn't there he isn't working as a full-time pilot. He has hardly been there for the last two months and has more time off coming with the Olympics and then his trip to Asia - so for the best part of 4 months straight he will hardly have had a chance to have to do any work with the Jubilee and other activities and no doubt when he returns from Asia he and Kate will have to take a holiday.

.

William works as a fulltime Search and Rescue pilot. He works around 10 shifts a month, the shifts are 24 hour shifts, this information was given out by the RAF when he started. This is the norm for a Search and Rescue crew. In recent months he was working towards qualifying as a captain and did a week's course in Gloucestershire, so was there rather than in Wales. He gets 6 weeks annual leave as do all military personnel in the UK, plus extra leave before and after an overseas deployment. ( 3 weeks before and 3 weeks after if it's to a warzone, seems to be less if it's not William had a week off, before and after going to the Falklands. Harry had the 3 before and 3 after when he went to Afghanistan)
Up until now, William has used annual leave for his overseas tours (he hasn't done holidays attached to them for his visits to Australia or Canada/California) The trip to Australia and New Zealand last year he did between shifts, confirmed by the RAF, he didn't ask for any time off.

A reality check too as what the royal workforce was like in the past. Go back to the mid 1960s, at that time the only fulltime royals were The Queen Mother, Prince Philip, Princess Alice, Duchess of Gloucester and Princess Marina, Duchess of Kent. The Queen was on a reduced workload as she had young children and took more time off with them than she had with her older 2. Prince Henry, Duke of Gloucester had suffered a major stroke in the 1960s and was confined to a wheelchair and had lost his ability to speak so did no royal duties. Princess Margaret also had small children and so had a light load (in reality she never had a heavy fulltime workload) Lord Snowdon, was never a fulltime royal, he worked on his own independent projects. The Duke of Kent was a fulltime army officer and in the 1960s was posted overseas, first to Hong Kong and then to Germany. His brother also was in the army. Their sister Alexandra had been a fulltime royal, but she too had young children and did reduced duties. The Gloucester sons did no royal duties, Richard (the current Duke) was never expected to carry out royal duties and qualified and worked as an architect, William the heir to the title was overseas, first doing post graduate study at Stanford and then working for the Foreign Office in Ghana and Japan.
Princess Alice, Countess of Athlone (then in her 80s) still carried out some duties.
Princess Mary, Princess Royal died in 1965. She had done duties whilst still alive.

The Queen's own children were too young at the time to perform royal duties. So the fulltime royals were a total of 4 people, all bar Prince Philip in their 60s. Then you had the Queen and 3 part-timers (one in her 80s) we can be generous and make that 4 part-timers if we add Lord Snowdon. A workforce total of 9 royals, compared to the 16 full and part-timers we have now. In the 1950s the royal workforce also was under 10 members so in the future with natural attrition the royal workforce will naturally contract to previous levels.